Guerrero, Oaxaca and Chiapas had Mexico’s highest child-labor rates in 2025, highlighting risks to children’s education, safety and development.
More than one in five children and adolescents in Guerrero, Oaxaca and Chiapas were in child labor in 2025, according to Mexico’s National Child Labor Survey. One can connect those figures with families’ experiences in agriculture, street commerce and other activities that can put children’s education and safety at risk.
Guerrero recorded the highest rate, at 22.6% of its population ages 5 to 17, followed by Oaxaca at 20.9% and Chiapas at 20.3%. All three exceeded the national rate of 12.6%. INEGI released the findings on October 21; they describe conditions in 2025 rather than an increase measured this October.
Nationally, approximately 3.5 million children and adolescents were in child labor. That measure includes economic work prohibited because of age or hazardous conditions, along with household chores performed for excessive hours or under conditions that threaten health and development. Approximately 1.6 million performed only prohibited economic work, 1.7 million only unsuitable household chores, and 200,000 both.
In Guerrero’s Montaña region, the relationship between work and schooling becomes especially visible when families leave for seasonal agricultural jobs. The human-rights organization Tlachinollan reported that families from the Nahua community of Chiepetepec departed for Culiacán, Sinaloa, on October 21. Its account identifies 38 children, 21 boys and 17 girls, among those traveling and describes teacher shortages and limited educational opportunities in their home communities.
Their presence on the journey, however, does not establish that every child works in the fields. Tlachinollan also described a father identified as Miguel, who traveled with his wife and two daughters for a seven-month harvesting contract. He said his daughters attended school and daycare while their parents worked. Understanding the children’s circumstances therefore requires knowing what happens at their destination, including whether schooling and care remain available throughout the season.
Elsewhere, organizations describe more direct exposure to exploitation. In Oaxaca, The Centro de Apoyo al Niño de la Calle, or CANICA, points to recruitment and coercion involving children, including selling goods in adult entertainment settings and exposure to sexual abuse. These are attributed findings about particular risks, rather than evidence that every child counted in the survey experienced trafficking.
Óscar González Valleza of Melel Xojobal said children’s activities should be assessed through their hours, conditions, payment and effects on their rights. He distinguished exploitation from activities through which Indigenous families pass on agricultural, craft and cultural knowledge, while warning about responsibilities that become excessive or interfere with school.
INEGI’s findings show how closely child labor and educational exclusion intersect. The rate was 48.4% among children and adolescents not attending school, compared with 9.9% among those attending. The survey does not establish which circumstance came first, but the difference underscores the importance of examining work and access to education together.
The figures establish the scale of child labor, while the regional accounts reveal different circumstances behind it. For migrant agricultural families, access to classrooms and childcare can shape children’s daily lives. Where coercion or dangerous conditions are reported, those allegations require investigation. The central question is what children are being asked to do, under what conditions, and how it affects their safety, education and development.
